2014 Legislative Session: Second Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, April 10, 2014

Morning Sitting

Volume 10, Number 8

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 2014

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Tributes

CAROL-ANN DWYER

C. Trevena: I'd like to ask the House to join me in offering condolences to the family of Carol-Ann Dwyer. Carol-Ann was an activist professionally — as a drug, alcohol and gambling addictions counsellor — and a fighter for social justice outside her work. I have to say she spent many an hour knocking on doors for the NDP during election campaigns.

Carol-Ann continued fighting towards the end of her life. Her 70th birthday became a fundraiser for ALS, to raise money and to raise awareness of the syndrome. She was selling her scarfs and some of her wonderful jewelry. Today I'm wearing one of her bangles.

The last conversation I had with Carol-Ann was about the right to die. As the illness progressed, she was extremely fearful about being kept alive against her will as her body shut down. She said the fight for the right to die was as fundamental as a woman's right to choose, the battle that was fought several decades ago. "It's my body, and I'll do with it what I want," she said.

Carol-Ann leaves her husband, Marcus Willems, as well as her large and loving family and a community richer for having her as part of it and poorer now she's gone. A celebration of her life is being held in Campbell River on Saturday.

Introductions by Members

Hon. T. Wat: This morning I'm pleased to introduce a great advocate for B.C.'s shellfish and aquaculture industry who is working tirelessly to grow our province's exports of high-quality seafoods around the world and to create jobs and investment here at home. Would the House please welcome here today Chief Richard Hardy of the K'ómoks First Nation and general manager of Pentlatch Seafoods.

A. Weaver: It's my very great pleasure to introduce Susan Low, who is in the gallery today, from the Community Social Planning Council here in greater Victoria. Would the House please give her a warm welcome.

Hon. S. Thomson: Joining us in the gallery today are some good friends from Kelowna who have come to visit and have a tour of the Legislature. They had a couple of meetings with colleagues of mine. I'd like the House to make welcome Cory and Tania Whalen and their children, Nolan and Owen, who have had a great time touring the Legislature and touring Victoria.

Just a little bit of a story. Cory has a long history in this province. Cory's great-grandfather was the founder of Port Alice and the mill in Port Alice.

Also joining them today in the House is Brian Markin, who's with Neucel. A little bit of a story. Neucel, through Brian Markin, donated a story log or story pole to the school, l'Anse-au-sable, in Kelowna, in my riding, that taught the children a lot of the native culture. All participated in the carving of the pole, and I had the great honour of joining them and helping to raise the pole in the middle of their school.

They're now embarked on a second project of carving a dugout canoe.

This is really helping provide that inclusion in the school, in school district 93 and in the French school system — providing that aboriginal culture and heritage in that school system.

[1010]

I'd like the House to make all of them welcome and thank them for their contribution to our community and their support for the education system in British Columbia.

N. Simons: I'd like to welcome a constituent from Powell River–Sunshine Coast and a member of the B.C. Nurses Union, Liana Cole. Would the House please join me in welcoming her here.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present two guests to you today — Bob Jackson and Jim Lamond, visiting from Richmond. They are the heart and soul of KidSport in Richmond. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

VICTIMS OF CRIME AWARENESS WEEK
AND REPRESENTATIVE FOR
CHILDREN AND YOUTH

K. Corrigan: I rise in the House today to mark National Victims of Crime Awareness Week. The theme for 2014 is "Taking action." I want to take this opportunity to highlight the work of the Office of the Representative for Children and Youth. It is staffed by a multidisciplinary team, all of whom are focused on ensuring that children and youth who receive government services in British Columbia are protected and safe. The office's integrity is protected by its independence.
[ Page 3074 ]

I want to commend the whole staff, but particularly the lead, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, the Representative for Children and Youth. Ms. Turpel-Lafond's work, particularly in her various reports on tragic incidents involving the deaths of children in British Columbia, has highlighted deficiencies in the systems and agencies that are meant to protect children and youth in this province.

These reports have also offered solutions. Particularly, she has been calling for an effective domestic violence strategy since her 2009 report on the murder of Christian Lee in Oak Bay. Many similar recommendations were made in her 2012 report Honouring Kaitlynne, Max and Cordon. That report also pointed out deficiencies of the mental health, child protection and justice services in this province and the lack of coordination between the three.

The representative's office does much other important work, including regular reviews and investigations of critical injuries and deaths of children in B.C. Several reports have focused on services for aboriginal youth, and the representative has also investigated mental health services for youth in British Columbia. In addition and among other things, the office provides a very important role of advocacy services for youth.

I want to commend both sides of the House for continuing to support the important work of the representative. Government is taking some of the steps recommended by Turpel-Lafond, but let's remember that the theme this year is that we need action now.

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL INDICATORS
AND PROMOTION OF HAPPINESS

G. Hogg: In 1968 Robert Kennedy reminded us that GDP measures everything except that which makes life worthwhile. Since then the governments of Canada, the United Kingdom, the OECD countries and the United Nations, to name a few, have surveyed, studied and searched for new, more representative measurements of economic performance and social progress.

In 2011 the United Nations declared March 20 as United Nations International Day of Happiness. All 193 member states supported this declaration, which also recognized happiness as a fundamental human goal and called for an inclusive, equitable, responsible and balanced approach to economic growth — an approach that could serve as a guide for the development of public policies.

When people around the world were asked what made them happy, the answers were remarkably consistent. The most important issues were economic growth, family, work and health. So while many advertisers would have us believe that happiness comes from buying their products and while some celebrities would have us believe that happiness comes from fame and beauty and while some politicians would have us believe that happiness comes from supporting them — imagine — it seems, however, that evidence would suggest otherwise.

People's feelings about their lives are more important than any of those external factors. So as we go back to our communities for the Easter break, may we, as Robert Kennedy suggested, focus on those things that make life worthwhile.

JACKIE HOOPER

D. Eby: In 1927 a hero of B.C.'s mental health movement was born. Raised during the Great Depression, Jackie Hooper and her sister recall many meagre meals of bone broth soup seasoned with parsley for supper. Raising two children and living on a widow's pension of $42 a month while suffering from depression herself, Ms. Hooper's mother could not afford more.

[1015]

Despite facing dramatic child poverty, Ms. Hooper had the courage to come back. Between the ages of 17 and 23 she served in World War II as a driver, hitchhiked to Mexico and back, got her first degree at UBC in geography, worked as a photogrammetrist — it's just a two-minute statement, but I encourage members to look up photogrammetry — and, on a dare, became a pilot.

Ms. Hooper's first bout with severe depression hit in 1972 after a difficult series of events in her life. After attempting suicide, Ms. Hooper admitted herself to west one, the psychiatric ward at UBC Hospital, where she received exceptional care.

So exceptional was her care and so exceptional is Ms. Hooper that she had the courage to come back yet again, this time to take on a project that would change the face of mental health treatment in B.C. Ms. Hooper started a conversation with Coast Mental Health which led her to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and then to the New Democrat Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement, Norm Levi. All were 100 percent behind her idea to start the first supportive housing apartment building in B.C. for people with mental illness.

In 1974 the Hooper Apartments, named in Ms. Hooper's honour, opened in Vancouver's West End with 25 bachelor suites. Today Coast Mental Health rents nearly 1,000 suites in the province, and next month they will be honouring Ms. Hooper with the Courage To Come Back Award for her determination and resilience in working through her illness.

Although her personal challenges with mental health still exist — she most recently admitted herself to hospital in 2013 — her contributions to our province are immeasurable. In addition to founding supportive mental health in B.C., she earned her master of social work at 59, was an avid member of a Brock House hikers club until 76, paints portraits and landscapes and, at 87 years old, is a strong advocate for a good daily walk.

I am honoured to represent Ms. Hooper, who has lived in the constituency of Vancouver–Point Grey for over 40
[ Page 3075 ]
years. Congratulations on having the courage to come back, Ms. Hooper.

CHILLIWACK CHILD AND
YOUTH COMMITTEE

L. Throness: I had the privilege of addressing an important group last weekend in Chilliwack, the Child and Youth Committee.

Chilliwack is a remarkable place, where a community-minded people take action when they see a need, and when they do something, they do it in a big way. For example, when a group of churches saw the needs of the homeless, they got together and raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund, build and operate the Ruth and Naomi's Mission in the downtown core, now a going concern that ministers to hundreds every week.

In a similar way, others in Chilliwack saw at-risk families, saw that agencies could work together better to help them and decided to do something about it, so they formed the Chilliwack Child and Youth Committee. When I visited their 21st annual day-long consultation meeting on Friday, the large auditorium was full of displays and people — full because there are 25 member agencies, from Big Brothers to the YMCA and everyone in between.

They operate an amazing range of activities, guided by a comprehensive action plan informed by four busy subcommittees and a full-time child and youth coordinator. Their monthly newsletter tells families what's happening at the various family places around the city — about parent conversations, field trips, budgeting workshops, crafts and coffee meetings, family camps and vaccination clinics, not to mention the numerous programs for youth. The list really does go on and on.

The theme for this year's consultation was "Every door is the right door," as our committee seeks to have a one-stop shop for every needy family that inquires at any one of its agencies. Chilliwack's Child and Youth Committee could be a model for any community in B.C.

I want to thank the hard-working committee and subcommittees, the many volunteers and Karen Steegstra, the CYC coordinator, for a continuing job well done. Their good work reminds me that there are no better people and no better place to live than in Chilliwack in the Fraser Valley.

SONGHEES WELLNESS CENTRE

M. Karagianis: Recently I had the great privilege of standing with leaders and members of the Songhees Nation as they officially opened their new Songhees Wellness Centre. This 55,000-square-foot centre has been years in the making, and it's already a focal point for community activities. What an achievement.

In the words of the Songhees elder Thelma Dick: "We deserve this. It's time." Indeed it is. Thelma was one of the community members who participated in the original recreation centre committee 30 years ago. So it has been a long journey.

The $24 million centre, with a glorious view out over Esquimalt Harbour, was constructed without a dime from the provincial government. It is a LEED silver building designed by Victoria architect Philip Chang to "walk softly on the earth." It includes geothermal heating, solar hot water and innovative materials throughout to maximize energy efficiency and comfort.

[1020]

There's a gymnasium, a fitness centre, a health centre, a teaching kitchen, classrooms and office space for the band administration. The skill of many generations of woodcarvers is evident throughout the building, with exquisite totems both inside and out.

At the opening, the wellness centre was dedicated: "In loving memory to those who came before us, those who carried the dream and those we lost along the journey. You are with us in spirit." Those include Richard Mandy, the project manager, who sadly and tragically died during the construction of the centre.

I'd like to pay tribute to some of those who have made the dream a reality: Chief John Albany; Chief Norman George; Chief Robert Sam; and Chief Ron Sam, whose leadership today is moving the Songhees Nation forward with pride and purpose.

It gives me great pride to say to Chief Sam, the elders and the leaders who made it happen: well done, and a heartfelt congratulations. You have built a place that brings the community together, celebrates your values and that is a legacy for future generations.

SPIRIT BEARS AND
GREAT BEAR RAINFOREST

J. Thornthwaite: B.C.'s incredible natural beauty, large wildlife population and diverse ecosystem have provided us with a unique advantage in the global tourism marketplace. Our ecotourism industry, which includes camping, hiking, backpacking and nature-based viewing, now accounts for more than three million visitors to the province each year.

B.C. is home to the rare white kermode, or spirit bear. It is a symbol of our province and has made B.C. a prime bear-watching destination. This majestic animal is actually a black bear that is born white, a trait more commonly found on a few isolated islands within the Great Bear rainforest. It is here amidst the lush emerald green of the north and central coast that the spirit bear can be found.

There are dozens of bear-viewing companies in the Great Bear rainforest, and I was very fortunate to be a guest of one in June 2012. Ocean Adventures provided an amazing coastal tour of the rainforest and its furry inhabitants. I must say that it rivalled any tour I took in Africa or South America.
[ Page 3076 ]

Unfortunately, many people haven't heard of the spirit bear, and few have witnessed their beauty. But Diane Roberts, a B.C.-based award-winning filmmaker, is trying to change that.

Diane and her company, West Eagle Films, are about to start production on an IMAX 3-D film called Land of the Spirit Bear. The film will take viewers on a tour of the Great Bear rainforest, immersing the audience in the sights and sounds of the spirit bear's environment and capturing their beauty with the highest-resolution cameras in existence.

For those unable to visit the Great Bear rainforest firsthand, Land of the Spirit Bear is shaping up to be the next best thing. The producers are working towards a global release, including showings at natural history museums, the Smithsonian Institute and right next door at the Royal British Columbia Museum.

I want to wish Diane and her crew all the best, and I look forward to buying a ticket for opening night.

Oral Questions

PREMIER'S ROLE
WITH RCI CAPITAL GROUP SUBSIDIARY

A. Dix: Hon. Speaker….

Interjections.

A. Dix: This is fantastic, hon. Speaker. You've got to give the people what they want.

A report today raises questions about the ties of the Premier to a company that has done significant business with the provincial government. Part of what's troubling about this story in the National Post today is that the Premier made claims that simply didn't turn out to be the case when confronted by the facts. Asked about her relationship with a subsidiary of RCI Capital, the Premier says: "I don't have one." Yet there's a letter offering her the position of founding chair of a subsidiary of RCI Pacific Gateway Education Inc.

Did the Premier forget that she was the founding chair of this company?

Hon. C. Clark: No, I didn't forget the honorary chair position. I never did any work for the company, however. As far as I understand, it never really got off the ground. I was never paid by them. They have, since then….

[1025]

The report in the National Post has come out. I understand that that's how the member does his research. But I will say this. I never did any work for the company. I wasn't paid by the company. I never attended any meetings at the request of the company. And as far as I know, the company never even really got off the ground.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition on a supplemental.

A. Dix: Hopefully, the Premier takes a different approach with directors of Crown corporations.

In this case the Premier was appointed "the founding chair," which is the term used by the company. The company was launched October 17, 2007. Here we are in the spring of 2008, them drumming up business. How are they trying to drum up business? By saying that their founding chair was the former Deputy Premier and the former Minister of Education, now the Premier.

The Premier is right to say that the company has been wrapped up. When it wrapped up four years later, on May 16, 2011, who was on the board? Well, it happens to be the Premier, unaware as she is. I know the Premier knows more about the private sector than I do, which makes it all the more surprising that the Premier would be ignorant of the Company Act obligation she has as a director, ignorant that she was still a director when she became Premier, ignorant of the fact that they were using her name to promote the company. How is this possible?

What was the Premier's relationship with this company? Because being a director for four years isn't doing "no work."

Hon. C. Clark: It may be that some time in the future the Leader of the Opposition will have an opportunity to find out a little bit about the private sector.

In addition to the things that I've already outlined, it's also important…. I mean, not only did I not get paid by the company, not only did I not attend any meetings on behalf of the company and not only did I cease my involvement when I got involved in the media, but I also, as the member should know, had no obligation to declare my relationship with that company in the time that I was working in the private sector and outside of politics.

If everything that I did in the private sector now, today, puts me in a conflict, I think it would be unwise for me, imprudent for me, to ever speak to the media for which I used to work.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition on a further supplemental.

A. Dix: This fantasy world in which the government caucus lives….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members, the Chair needs to hear the question and the answer.

A. Dix: The Premier has done significant business promoting this company since becoming Premier. She was a director of this company as she was Premier. She seems
[ Page 3077 ]
unaware. She says she didn't have any relationship with the company during her time when she worked in the media. That is manifestly not true. The Company Act contradicts her.

I mean, they can assert things in this fantasy world. "I wasn't a director of the company," even though she was. "They weren't using me to promote their company," even though they were. I wasn't the founding chair of the company," even though she was. "I didn't sign a contract for thousands of dollars," even though she did.

[1030]

Can the Premier explain why she didn't disclose this matter, when she became Premier of British Columbia, to the public of British Columbia?

Hon. C. Clark: The member asks that question in a way that suggests he thinks that, although I had no obligation to disclose this, if I had disclosed it before the election, there might have been a different result on May 14 a year ago. I listen to that question, and I ask myself: can it be possible today, almost a year later, that the members across on the other side of the House still don't understand what was at issue during the last election campaign?

What was at issue was whether or not British Columbians wanted to grow our economy, whether British Columbians wanted to create a future for their children, whether British Columbians wanted to take the opportunity to create a new industry in liquefied natural gas — 100,000 new jobs, the opportunity to pay off our provincial debt.

Here we are almost a year later — in fact, almost a year to the day that the writ was dropped — and we know what British Columbians decided. They decided to embrace economic opportunity, to grasp the growth and the future that is promised for liquefied natural gas.

They decided to reject a party and a leader that decided they didn't support resource development. Well, we do. We believe in growth and we believe in a bright future for British Columbians.

INCOME ASSISTANCE POLICY ON
CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS AND
GOVERNMENT ACTION ON POVERTY

M. Mungall: Yesterday single moms came here to stand up for their kids and all children in B.C. living in poverty. Moms like Diane Terrillon were here asking the Premier to put some meaning into her slogans for a change and end the child support clawback that takes $17 million out of the hands of B.C.'s poorest kids.

With the stroke of a pen, the Premier could make an incredible difference in the lives of B.C.'s poorest kids. My question is to the Premier. Rather than dismiss these families like you did yesterday — and stop smirking, Premier — will you, today…?

Madame Speaker: Member, you will direct your remarks through the Chair.

M. Mungall: Sorry, hon. Chair.

Madame Speaker: And I would ask you to withdraw.

M. Mungall: I withdraw.

Madame Speaker, will the Premier today stop dismissing these families, and will she commit to ending the child support clawback?

Hon. D. McRae: We've talked about this issue in this House before, and like I said before, as a father, as a teacher who has worked with children for a very long time, I know this is an extremely challenging issue for single-parent families. Now, I know the member opposite has heard this before.

I've had the honour to serve in this ministry for now ten months. I've had the honour to meet with individuals, including some of those people who were here yesterday, and hear about the concerns they have. They are challenging, and I'm pleased that they're there advocating for a really vulnerable segment of our society. I know British Columbia is not alone in having this conversation, as across the country there are eight other provinces who do similar actions as we do.

I've stated in this House before that people who receive family maintenance from a spouse may also receive income assistance top-up if the maintenance payments do not exceed their income assistance amount. As the Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation, as members of this governments, we continue to strive to support persons in British Columbia who are most vulnerable. We have these conversations. We look forward to making sure that if there are opportunities to make improvements, we do so.

[1035]

We take this issue very seriously, and I don't want the members opposite to ever characterize it as being any different.

Madame Speaker: The member for Nelson-Creston on a supplemental.

M. Mungall: I'm not too sure who the minister says he met with yesterday. The single moms were here, and I didn't get a single phone call, a single e-mail or a text message, Facebook, tweet or anything from this minister asking me to bring the single moms over to his office so that he could talk to them.

He did not have a conversation with them yesterday, and it's very disappointing to hear him say that he is talking to people when this government is not. It is very disappointing to hear the minister continually compare himself to parents who are living on $1,000 a month when he makes $150,000 each year.
[ Page 3078 ]

Earlier this week the member for Maple Ridge–Mission argued against a poverty reduction strategy in B.C., saying: "Food. I have not met children starving in British Columbia in the past 50-some years." Clearly, the member has not visited the food banks and soup kitchens in his own community. Many children in B.C. are going hungry. Child clients of food banks have risen to 30 percent, and that's exactly why the single moms were here yesterday.

My question is back to the Premier. No more empty slogans: will the Premier today commit to taking action, stop dismissing these families and end the child support clawback?

Hon. D. McRae: I've been in this House for five years, and what the member opposite just accused me of is reprehensible. Just because I have a job that actually pays a certain amount of dollars doesn't mean that I do not understand the concerns and challenges facing single-parent families.

I ran for this party, for this province, because I want to make life better for all British Columbians. And yes, I have an opportunity in this day to have a job to help make lives better for vulnerable citizens of this province. But this is not the job I've always had or always will have.

I honestly believe we work hard in this province — not just in this Legislature, not just in school districts, not just in non-profit organizations. We want to make sure that those in our society who need a little bit more are there to be supported, and it's not an easy task. To accuse me otherwise just makes me angry.

We grow the economy of this province so we can provide supports for vulnerable citizens of this province. That is why 800,000 individuals do not pay MSP premiums. That is why more than a quarter of a million British Columbians do not pay for PharmaCare. We don't need to talk about bus passes as well. But do not accuse me of not caring for the citizens of British Columbia.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: The members will come to order.

M. Karagianis: The reality is that this issue is not about that minister. It's not about him. It's about the children and the families who are having their money clawed back every single month by this government.

[1040]

Interjections.

M. Karagianis: Obviously, a very sore point, this topic, and I can understand why that side of the House is so sensitive to this.

On Monday we had a debate in here about poverty reduction.

Interjection.

M. Karagianis: Madame Speaker, I think I have the floor. Could we ask the minister, please, to let me have the floor?

Madame Speaker: Please take your seat, Member.

Please continue.

M. Karagianis: On Monday we had a debate in this House about a poverty reduction strategy. The member for Maple Ridge–Mission also argued a poverty reduction strategy isn't needed because "there are about half a dozen thrift stores that provide low- or no-cost clothing for the needy."

I'd like to ask the Premier and the minister responsible if they agree with their colleague that charity is a replacement for government action on poverty. If not, will this government do the right thing today and remove the clawback from single-parent families who need this to take care of their children? Remove the clawback. That is all you need to do to make this go away.

Hon. D. McRae: As Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation, I am charged with assisting individuals who are in a vulnerable place in society. As the members opposite know, areas which I'm responsible for are areas like income assistance, persons with disabilities and yes, some employment programs.

As a government, we grow the economy to provide services for British Columbians. One of the things that's so essential is that we make sure that British Columbians can have jobs.

As we go forward in this province, we are charged with the responsibility of making sure that families, parents, will be better able to support their children. We do so by making sure there is an economic climate that individuals can have hope for to make sure they have jobs to raise their families and provide opportunities for their young children.

Now, that being said, I want to remind the members opposite that we do many things for residents in British Columbia. If a person is a single parent on income assistance, they have access to about $385 of income tax supports every month. This works out to a huge opportunity for individuals to get supports.

We have had an opportunity in the last nine months in British Columbia to do some amazing things. I know the members opposite may claim that we were not working when we were actually not sitting in this Legislature. I was so glad that we had the opportunity for myself and my colleagues to go around the province of British Columbia and meet with individuals and organizations.

Not only did I have that seven months, with Community Living Month, to travel around the province of British Columbia, but we also had the opportunity
[ Page 3079 ]
to lay that foundation for a conversation about the white paper for persons with disabilities. The conversation was not just about persons with disabilities.

But that being said, we were able to hear about concerns and challenges and opportunities that we can do…

Madame Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Hon. D. McRae: …to better serve the residents of this province.

I'm sure there's going to be a follow-up question to follow, and I look forward to giving some more information to my colleagues.

M. Karagianis: Well, this conversation gets more disappointing each and every day in this House. I heard the Finance Minister brag the other day that all those cabinet ministers are going to get a 10 percent raise very shortly. They were forthcoming.

At the same time that they're all going to get their 10 percent pay raise, they are taking $100 a month out of the most impoverished families and children in this province — taking this money back, clawing it back every single month, the money that would make all the difference in the world.

They have no compunction about taking back $100 a month from children, while they can brag about pay raises. It is disgraceful — disgraceful.

Now, it's simple. This can all be fixed. The Premier today can stand up and say, "I will stop clawing back child support from children," and this will all go away.

Will the government, will the Premier, do the right thing — stop clawing back child support payments from children and impoverished families in this province?

[1045]

Hon. D. McRae: There's always work to be done in British Columbia in this ministry, work that we will always continue to do. That is why we continue to meet with individuals, with organizations and even businesses to see what we can do to better provide and evolve income assistance for persons who are needing work but also persons with disabilities in this province.

We know that society changes, and there are always different challenges that may come up. That is why, as a minister, I strive incredibly hard to make sure we meet with individuals, not just in Victoria, not in the Lower Mainland, but in communities large and small across this province. Sometimes the needs are different in, say, a community in northern British Columbia like Dawson Creek or Fort St. John because of climatic, economic or geographic differences.

That being said, we want to make sure there are opportunities there. We don't just stop and talk — one of the things I want the members opposite to remind themselves of. You will look at the budget documents. I'm looking forward to canvassing this in estimates coming forward.

One of the things that we look for Budget 2014 to do is provide some extra supports for CLBC. Why? They are a vulnerable section of our society and one we ought to make sure we grow the economy and provide those extra supports for.

We are just now doing the final analysis of the data from the consultation process from the disability white paper. I look forward to having a work plan to go forward to help British Columbians all over this great province.

FUNDING FOR
ISLAND SEXUAL HEALTH SOCIETY

A. Weaver: Island Sexual Health Society provides essential primary and public services to the lower Island, with over 26,000 patient visits each year. It fills a significant gap around basic health care needs in a cost-effective manner.

My riding has both Camosun College and the University of Victoria, with thousands and thousands of students who do not have GPs or access to GPs and who require these services.

The Island Sexual Health Society is systemically underfunded by our public health system, needing more than a third of their budget — in fact, 36.4 percent, if you wish to know, of their operational budget — from non-governmental sources. As a consequence, they are struggling to stay open. In fact, you might say they are victims of their own success.

My question is to the Health Minister. Will the minister make a commitment to support Island Sexual Health in continuing to provide these essential services?

Hon. T. Lake: Thank you to the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head for the question.

Island Sexual Health is a non-profit organization that does provide excellent service to people in the Victoria area. They have a mixed-funding model. They provide services on a fee-for-service basis. That continues, so health services are available through that model. They also provide some public health services through funding from Island Health, funding that has continued to increase over time.

I understand that Island Sexual Health moved into larger facilities and that the higher costs associated with those larger facilities have outpaced their revenue in terms of the MSP fee-for-service model. I know that Vancouver Island Health Authority is working with Island Sexual Health, and we will be involved in those discussions to look at ways of supporting this organization to maintain the valuable services they do provide and also to maintain and stay within the budget that they have for those services.
[ Page 3080 ]

Madame Speaker: Oak Bay–Gordon Head on a supplemental.

A. Weaver: Thank you to the minister for the very thoughtful response to that question.

I would like to add that just this week the board of Island Sexual Health met and agreed to cut their budget for this next fiscal year by $140,000, and they also made some structural changes by going to a walk-in model to increase client numbers and decrease administrative costs. But as the minister noted, they still need long-term commitment of $235,000 per year to offset tenancy costs. This is the barrier to their continued success.

Again to the minister: would the minister be able to agree, again, to work with Island Sexual Health in order to solve the crisis, the short-term crisis that they face, in terms of meeting their monthly tenancy costs?

[1050]

Frankly, the services they offer to southern Vancouver Island are simply too important for them not to remain solvent.

Hon. T. Lake: Again, I want to acknowledge the very good work that Island Sexual Health provides to residents in the Victoria area, particularly the university population. The member from Oak Bay and I share family members who attend the university and know that these services are very valuable.

However, whether it's a non-profit organization or whether it's a private corporation providing publicly funded health care, it is important that they pay attention to the funding model and the revenue that comes in and the expenditures.

In this situation, this organization decided to move into space that perhaps outpaced their ability to match with revenue. But we will work with them. We will work with Vancouver Island Health Authority to look to see if there are ways of supporting the organization while making sure they stay within their budget.

ADVANCED EDUCATION MINISTER
RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR MEETINGS

D. Eby: At each rally I've been to with B.C. students who are trying to save their English-as-a-second-language programs, the students tell me the minister has not accepted their invitations to meet. When I went to Simon Fraser University to tour their leaky buildings, student leaders said the minister had not accepted their invitations to meet either.

Now we've received a copy of a letter, from the minister for West Vancouver–Capilano.

An Hon. Member: The member.

D. Eby: The member — not the minister yet.

He writes: "I regret to remind you that as of today you have failed to respond to a letter sent to you last August requesting a detailed briefing of the funding model applicable to Capilano University. We are now approaching the six-month mark."

The Advanced Education Minister has also not accepted the open invitation from students, employers and community leaders to meet and discuss recent cuts to technology, arts and ABE programs at Cap.

Minister, we are now at the eight-month mark. Can you explain why you won't meet, even with your own colleague, to defend the chronic underfunding of Capilano University, a school that is B.C.'s lowest-funded university?

Hon. A. Virk: Well, the member opposite continues to rely on selective facts and misuse of facts. In fact, I have been at the main campus of every single university in British Columbia. I have met with faculty. I have met with staff. I have met with students at each and every university in British Columbia. I have met with representative student unions. I have met with different representatives of different groups all across British Columbia, including industry.

In fact, we are re-engineering education to make sure that a learner becomes an earner, and that's what we are committed to — making sure that students get jobs. We are committed all across this province to make sure that education is relevant and that students get the right training at the right place at the right time to get a job.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. S. Bond: I have the honour to present the British Columbia Labour Relations Board 2013 annual report.

Petitions

N. Simons: It gives me great pleasure to present to this House a petition with the signatures of 3,712 people calling on the government to make sure that the Agricultural Land Commission is strengthened in order to protect agricultural land for the future.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, Committee of Supply, estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture. In this chamber, second reading debate continues on Bill 19, the Animal Health Act.

[1055]

[D. Horne in the chair. ]
[ Page 3081 ]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 19 — ANIMAL HEALTH ACT

(continued)

D. Bing: I would like to conclude my remarks on the Animal Health Act, 2014 .

Our government believes, following the models of the federal and other provincial governments, that protecting the confidential information submitted to government by farmers is the right direction. Based on experiences in other jurisdictions, there has not been a successful animal disease control program anywhere in the world without voluntary farmer cooperation. The chief veterinarian for British Columbia has confirmed this.

Without information and data, the provincial government and the chief veterinarian cannot react accordingly. We do not want to act in a vacuum where we are surprised by disease. In our government's view, the consequences and potential risk to the health of British Columbians outweighs the commissioner's concerns. A 2012 review of legislation indicates that there are 32 other statutes currently in force in B.C. that have full or partial notwithstanding clauses in them, and this is no different.

It is important to discuss the records released under FOIPPA. The goal of this act is to protect human and animal health, and cooperation of producers is absolutely essential. Farmers need to be assured that their data is held and analyzed and that results are communicated back to them just as if they are dealing with a private laboratory.

Medical records can easily be misunderstood by those without proper medical training, and incorrectly interpreted records in the public realm could be devastating to a farmer's operation. Without that level of confidentiality, farmers are much less likely to participate in surveillance and monitoring programs. The credibility of disease surveillance and management relies on farmer participation.

The Animal Health Act, 2014, follows the precedent of federal and other provincial governments who believe protecting the confidential information submitted to government by farmers is correct. Other provinces have recognized the need for participation in surveillance and monitoring efforts.

In the B.C. model the Minister of Agriculture has control over the release of analytical information derived from lab analysis and any associated information such as personal and contact information. This ensures that the minister can be advised by the chief veterinary officer and any of the animal experts the ministry employs as part of the decision-making process.

Alberta has a specific notwithstanding clause in its animal health legislation to protect information supplied to government as related to animal disease control. B.C. is proposing a very similar clause.

In 2010 the public was invited to provide feedback on animal health policy through an on-line survey. Meetings were also held with B.C.'s cattle, dairy, chicken, turkey, sheep and beef sectors in 2010 and 2011 during the consultation in the policy development stages.

Generally speaking, most respondents supported an updated animal health policy that included all animals, not just livestock, and a wider range of animal diseases. They favoured clarification of control actions that could be taken in response to disease, with decisions based on scientific evidence.

They felt that traceability programs should be aligned with others in Canada that already exist — that is, through federal government or through marketing boards. They expressed concern about protection of privacy for information collected as part of a traceability program or for other purposes. They voiced strong support for enforcement provisions.

[1100]

Various ministries were consulted during the development of the legislation, including the provincial veterinarian and staff and B.C.'s chief medical officer. Also, the Ministries of Agriculture; Health; Environment; Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations; and Justice. Also, the office of the chief information officer; trade policy; animal health specialists in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario; and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

During our discussions in consultation with both the public and producers we heard a clear position expressed by the majority of participants that has been used to develop the legislation. Virtually all of the responses and input we received supported the modernization of the Animal Health Act, 2014, to include more diseases in animals, clearer language, increased scope of control actions and stronger enforcement.

Legislation takes time to develop once consultation is complete. The new legislation includes all of those and reflects the thoughts and suggestions of the province's producers and British Columbians.

In closing, I would like to reiterate the key message that the current Animal Health Act dates from 1948 and has not been modified substantially since that time. This legislation will update B.C.'s 66-year-old laws and give the provincial government the ability to limit the spread of current and emerging diseases and better respond to disease outbreaks. These changes will enable our government to take critical disease management actions on a significantly larger number of diseases more quickly within the first 24 to 48 hours of a serious animal disease being confirmed.

The Animal Health Act, 2014, enables government to employ modern animal disease management practices, to inspect and seize animals or their products and to issue orders for actions to be taken by animal owners. The act also contains higher penalties for offences and allows for emergency powers during times of crisis.

This legislation brings the Animal Health Act, 2014,
[ Page 3082 ]
into harmony with other legislation across Canada and reflects the realities of increasing global trade and travel.

V. Huntington: I am pleased to be able to speak on Bill 19, the Animal Health Act, and I would like to congratulate the government on an act that has received good support from the stakeholders and that had a good consultation process attached to it.

It gives the government the opportunity to limit the spread of disease. It gives emergency powers in that situation. It demands recordkeeping in order to properly track disease. It updates inspection and monitoring. It includes diseases that were unknown at the time of the 1948 act it replaces. And it increases administrative penalties for failure to report. It is an act and a consolidation that makes sense and a modernization long overdue. Effective animal disease control is essential in this modern era of easy movement, travel and contact.

However, in spite of the great values of the Animal Health Act, there's a glaring problem with Bill 19 — the same problem that prompted my comments on the previous bill; almost the very same problem that prompted the withdrawal of the previous bill. Yet again, no consideration has been given to the concerns of the Information and Privacy Commissioner or to the public's right to know.

Consultation with the Information and Privacy Commissioner is as important as consultation with any other stakeholder. Indeed, it should be a requirement that consultation with the commissioner be conducted. I fail to understand why any ministry, any minister, any government would not want to be secure in the knowledge that their bill ensured transparency, especially when a third-party interest can be protected under existing law.

I would go so far as to say that consultation should be a statutory requirement. Even further, I believe the legislation should be required to resolve any objections the Information and Privacy Commissioner might recommend. But here we have a bill that fails to respond to one of the most important and necessary independent officers of this Legislature, of any legislature.

We appoint a commissioner of information and privacy in order to ensure government is transparent yet protects the legitimate privacy of its citizens. What evidence does the minister have that enables him and his department to say they disagree with the commissioner's concerns? What independent specialist did they consult? Who knows more than the commissioner? There are 20 years of experience and precedent that the commissioner's office represents. Why would we second-guess her opinion?

[1105]

A better question might be: why does the minister feel he has the right to infringe on the personal privacy of an individual or withhold information from the public, especially when there is a constructive suggestion from the commissioner on how to protect the producer and farmer from commercial harm? If there is a way to protect the producer during the investigative stage, then why not reach out and adopt the recommendation?

Yes, the farmer should be protected if presence of disease has not been proven. As I suggested during debate on the last bill, keep the testing and inspection and documents confidential, at least until it's determined that disease is in fact present. Then the gloves should come off and the public have its right to know.

The commissioner advises that it is perfectly possible to protect the producer under the provisions surrounding commercial interest. So why not? Why would we not?

Ultimately, we are talking about the human food chain, and if there was ever a right to know that disease is present, this is the time. Muzzling scientists, reporters, officials is wrong and does not observe the public interest.

I urge the minister to review the subject provisions of this act and to take the steps necessary to ensure the concerns of the Information and Privacy Commissioner are fully satisfied. We can do it this session. There is still time to bring an amendment that will make this bill stronger and more responsive to the central democratic issues of government transparency and the availability of information in the public interest.

A. Weaver: I'd like to start by acknowledging the minister's efforts to provide an update to this legislation pertaining to animal health and disease control.

I want to also thank his staff for the extremely informative and substantive briefing that I received a few days ago. It's obvious from that briefing that much effort and much passion and much hard work was put into writing this piece of legislation, and I want to personally acknowledge those who played a role in getting it to this point.

The health of animals and control of animal-related diseases and outbreaks is an important issue to address, especially in today's society, where global travel and trade continue to expand. Given this reality, I believe in most ways Bill 19 offers an important step forward. For example, increasing the number of reportable diseases so as to include the updated understanding of the diseases that affect livestock and requiring ranchers and farmers to provide better training for employees will no doubt update and improve disease control mechanisms in our province.

I do understand there have been significant concerns raised over some aspects of this bill, particularly in its previous form a couple of years ago. Let me give a specific example. I understand right now that if I owned a poultry farm and I found diseased poultry, it might be in my interest to send that poultry to the United States for testing.

If I sent that piece of poultry in British Columbia for testing, the results of that test might get out. And if that test was faulty, panic in the public might ensue. If that test was sent to the U.S., I don't have to worry about that
[ Page 3083 ]
test getting out, unless it is a reportable disease. But then the only way the B.C. government would find out about that is when border control measures were put in place between the Canada-U.S. border. This seems wrong.

I recognize that there is a problem with the freedom-of-information aspect of this. I recognize that government is trying to manage its way, to navigate this very difficult problem. That being said, I think the ministry has taken the appropriate steps to help ensure a necessary flow of information for the purpose of ensuring public safety.

First, there has been much discussion over the restrictions this bill imposes on public access to information, as has been articulated by the Information and Privacy Commissioner. There's concern that this bill will limit the information that can be released to the public during a potential animal disease outbreak, as I mentioned in my example a few minutes ago. In particular, this bill would exempt six specific areas of information from the purview of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

[1110]

I understand why this has attracted so much attention, and I fully support the independent oversight that is required when we are dealing with privacy issues. However, I also feel that we must establish a system that promotes the timely reporting of animal-related diseases so that the necessary response can be undertaken and the greater public interest can be served.

Pending further analysis in the committee stage, I feel that this legislation before us may strike the necessary balance between ensuring information can be made public and providing adequate protection of personal information so as to promote the self-reporting of potential animal-based diseases.

Secondly, the amount of power that a health inspector appears to be granted in emergency situations has also received some criticism. In the event that B.C.'s chief veterinarian declares an emergency, the act seems to provide an inspector with the necessary powers for the collection, use and disclosure of personal information. It's my understanding that these powers are in line, in fact, with those already found in the Public Health Act and are simply in place to ensure the ministry is able to take appropriate action in the event of an emergency.

Finally, some have raised concerns that the maximum penalties for an offence proposed by this bill may be too punitive. It's obvious, of course, that the previous maximum penalty of $2,000 in a case that has grave and profound public health concerns is undoubtedly lenient by today's standards. These new maximum penalties again appear to be in line with animal health acts in other jurisdictions which the legislation is supposed to bring us in harmony with.

While there are some details of this bill to explore further in committee, I find this to be a substantial and positive update to a critical piece of legislation, and I'll certainly be supporting this as we move to the next stage of debate.

I would like to say now that I will be calling for a division on this bill, and I'd like to say why, if I can. Too often the media only report the negative things that happen in this Legislature. Today was a very negative experience for me, listening to the discussion back and forth on issues that are of great importance to British Columbians. I recognize you're going to call me out of order here, hon. Speaker. But I want people to recognize that there are times in this place where all parties agree on substantial pieces of legislation. That is the important message that needs to get out there.

This is a substantial piece of legislation. This is an important piece of legislation, and British Columbians need to know that while people have concerns, all parties are supporting it and moving it forward through committee stage.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I call on the minister to close debate.

Hon. T. Lake: Thank you to all of the members who spoke on this bill in second reading. I particularly want to thank the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head for his comments. I think he did an excellent job of talking about the balance that we're trying to strike here with this bill.

In my earlier comments I talked about the $1.4 billion that is generated in British Columbia in livestock receipts from the sale of cattle, hogs, poultry, eggs, dairy, honey and other animals and animal by-products. It is unquestionable that that could be put at risk by a devastating disease that would spread from producer to producer.

This bill is necessary for a number of reasons. Obviously, it's to prevent the spread of disease through animal populations but also to protect public health. We know there are diseases called zoonotic diseases that originate in animals but can end up in the human population. In fact, they can mutate and then spread throughout the human population, human to human, which we've seen with SARS and H1N1 in the past.

The trick in this approach is to find the right balance between the ability to access information but providing confidence in producers to report potential indicators of disease. The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head rightly cited concerns on the part of producers.

[1115]

If the information that is submitted to a provincial laboratory were to be made public…. There are instances where we have false positive tests, for example, and information that is released inappropriately could be devastating to an individual producer, could be devastating to an entire part of our agriculture industry.

When I travelled to the U.K. about ten years ago, I was
[ Page 3084 ]
there during an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. I witnessed firsthand the incredible devastation it had on the food-producing economy of the U.K., with pyres of animals being burned in fields to prevent the spread of that devastating illness.

It is important that we have a very robust, rigorous system of testing while providing the confidence in producers to be able to provide that information in a way that they feel will not harm their reputation, their income, their livelihood. Again, the minister has the ability, at the end of the day, to release information if it is in the public interest, which the minister certainly would do.

I also had the opportunity to travel to China and Japan as the co-chair of the Ranching Task Force, along with the former Agriculture Minister, when we were opening up markets for producers here in British Columbia. Recently we heard about the opening of the Korean market to British Columbia beef. This represents an enormous economic opportunity for agriculture, which I know all parties in this House do support.

It was important then, when we laid the groundwork for this expansion of this economic opportunity for agriculture, that we put in place updated legislation like the Animal Health Act to protect the agriculture producers in the province of British Columbia and to protect human health at the same time.

With that, I move second reading of Bill 19.

[1120]

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Madame Speaker: Members, would you kindly take your seats to assist in the taking of the division.

Hon. Members, the question is second reading of Bill 19.

Second reading of Bill 19 approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. T. Lake: I move that Bill 19 be referred to a Committee of the Whole for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 19, Animal Health Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

[1125]

Tributes

JIM FLAHERTY

Hon. M. de Jong: Madame Speaker, just before calling the next business in the House, I think members, through the advent of technology, are aware that the report, which has now been confirmed, is that former Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has, very sadly, passed away.

Mr. Flaherty served in a position of great responsibility on behalf of Canadians for, I believe, eight years. I believe everyone in the federal parliament and everyone here, irrespective of political stripe, would conclude that he served with distinction, with dignity.

When he withdrew from that position, I think many people, in paying tribute to his work, also quietly harboured the hope that he would have some time available with his family to celebrate, in the way he wanted to, his achievements and look forward to many long and happy years. Sadly, that has not transpired.

I know that all members of the House would want to convey to the federal parliament and to Mr. Flaherty's family our respect for the work he performed on behalf of all Canadians and our condolences for the sense of loss that they feel today.

A. Dix: Just to join with the Minister of Finance, as he notes and as we know, Mr. Flaherty served with distinction in provincial politics as well, on both government and opposition sides.

I know that this will be a very, very difficult day not just for his colleagues and people in the federal parliament but in particular for his family. We certainly join with the Minister of Finance's comments and hope that the House will send this message from all of us to his family.

Madame Speaker: It will be done.

Hon. M. de Jong: Our work continues. I call committee stage of Bill 15, Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 15 — LIQUOR CONTROL AND
LICENSING AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 15; D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 11:30 a.m.

On section 14 (continued).

Hon. S. Anton: We were discussing the question of hearings in front of the general manager, and I have a clarification which I would just like to read out.

On the topic of the licensee's opportunity to be heard by the general manager before a final decision is made on issues such as a licence suspension, transfers and enforcement actions. As I stated previously, the licensee is, in practice, given the opportunity for a hearing before the decisions are made. But I'll give some clarification here. A hearing can mean an oral hearing or a hearing
[ Page 3085 ]
by written submissions. That was the piece I did not include last time.

Generally, hearings by written submissions are used for issues such as administrative licence suspensions, licence applications and transfers — so "fit and proper" — as well as others. Oral hearings are used when facts are in dispute or credibility must be assessed. This method is generally used in enforcement cases.

In both oral and written hearings the licensee is given all the information the general manager may consider in the case, and the applicant is provided the opportunity to respond before a decision is made.

S. Simpson: Just a question in regard to the clarification from the minister. The decision about whether it will be an oral or a written hearing — that's a decision of the general manger? They make that determination?

Hon. S. Anton: Yes, that's correct — the general manager, of course, including his or her delegate.

S. Simpson: On section 14. Could the minister just give a bit of an overview. It's a fairly lengthy change. Section 20, as it was written in the current act, will be repealed and replaced with the section that is in Bill 15.

Could the minister give a bit of an overview about what changes are incorporated here that are different than what's in the existing act?

[1135]

Hon. S. Anton: Yes, this is the enforcement section, as the member will know. A lot of this enforcement scheme is carrying over from the previous act. There are some new pieces to it. Section 20(3) is new. Sections 20(7) and (8) were regulations and are now included in the act. The former 20(3) is repealed. I think, actually, we really kind of finished up last time at 20.02, 20.03 and 20.04, and we can go into those in a moment. But in the earlier part of the section, those are the pieces that are new or changed.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us, maybe to remind us, what's new about 20(3)?

Hon. S. Anton: The liquor policy review's No. 12 recommendation said: "Due to the varying size and focus of licensed establishments, consideration should be given to how different types of penalties — for example, a suspension versus a monetary penalty — may impact a licensee and staff."

What subsection (3) does is require the general manager to take into account compliance history, other relevant matters and anything that is appropriate to put into a regulation.

S. Simpson: When I read the existing 20(3), it says that "the general manager must suspend, cancel or order the transfer of a licence held by a person who has been convicted of a prescribed number of prescribed offences under the laws of Canada or British Columbia."

That's removed, and it now says that they must take action against a licensee, and then bases it on the licensee's compliance history, matters prescribed by regulation and other matters that the general manager considers relevant.

Could the minister explain a little bit about what the effect of that change is? The current act seems to say that if you've been convicted of something previously, it's pretty absolute what happens. This, it appears, provides some more latitude to the general manager to consider other factors before taking action. Could the minister explain what the practical result of this change will be?

Hon. S. Anton: The former (3) was actually never used, because it was a prescribed number of prescribed offences. That never was put into a regulation. So in fact, the old (3) was not used.

What the new (3) does is allow the different considerations for the general manager, which was a strong request by industry — that the general manager should be able to take into account compliance history and things that go into regulation and, I think, to allow more ability to deal with the appropriate sanction for the conduct in question.

[1140]

S. Simpson: If we had a circumstance where the general manager was taking action against the licensee based on section 3, would it be the requirement of the general manager to provide a written explanation around things like compliance history, other regulatory matters, saying, "I'm taking action X because of," and provide that document in writing to the licensee?

Hon. S. Anton: Yes, the final decision is in writing, and it does contain the matters that were considered.

S. Simpson: I think I got that. I just want a clarification. When the general manager writes back to the licensee and says, "We've made a determination not to approve of the transfer of this, and here are the reasons," he will then document those reasons so that the licensee's not just being told, "You've been rejected because you've breached the act," but in fact, "Here are the specifics for the reason that we chose to reject your licence," if that was the circumstance.

Hon. S. Anton: The former subsection (4) is now subsection (9). I don't think we should spend a lot of time analyzing why the numbers are the way they are. I'm sure there's an excellent reason.

The new subsection (9) says that if the general manager makes a determination, "the general manager must, in writing to the licensee," specify the action, the reasons,
[ Page 3086 ]
the details of the action. I think that's what the member is looking for.

S. Simpson: The minister has said sections 20(7) and 20(8) had been regulation and are now being put into legislation. Could the minister tell us what the thinking is for the decision to not have these be regulatory but be legislated authorities now?

Hon. S. Anton: This is a housekeeping consolidation. The conduct of the hearings and the rules around them were contained both in regulation and in legislation, and this is moving them so they're together in the legislation.

S. Simpson: Section 20 — before the general manager was to take an action against a licensee — has incorporated all of the bits and pieces and rules and the processes that would be followed, laid out in section 20.

Could the minister tell us a little about the expectation of the engagement process for the general manager or their delegate with a licensee before you get to the point of taking action? What should a licensee reasonably expect in terms of engagement with the branch, with the general manager, before they get to the point where an action is contemplated by the general manager?

[1145]

Hon. S. Anton: The process of this…. If there is thought to be a contravention, the inspector will discuss it with the licensee and, in appropriate circumstances, will issue a contravention notice. If the offence requires it, there will then be a notice of enforcement action, which is the inspector's way of saying that they are considering a sanction. At that point the licensee can accept the sanction with a waiver or the licensee can request a hearing, and I think we've talked about the hearings.

S. Simpson: Section (4) in the act here lays out a couple of options. The options are monetary penalties or licence suspension. Is that an either-or situation? Or does the general manager have the authority to, in fact, suspend for a while and put a monetary penalty in place as well?

Hon. S. Anton: Section (2) sets out the actions that the general manager can undertake against the licensee, and there are five of them there. What section (4) does is say that the general manager, in the public interest, may actually increase the monetary penalties or increase the length of the suspension. Generally, both don't happen, although technically, I think it's possible that both could happen.

S. Simpson: Section (5) lays out the maximums for a monetary penalty: $50,000 for a contravention of section 38(1) — which is essentially the illegal sale of liquor, I believe — and $25,000 for any other reason referred to in this section. Could the minister tell us: are these changes to what the current rules or the current maximums are? Or are they consistent with the current maximums?

Hon. S. Anton: It's not a change.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that these are maximums. Could the minister give us some idea of what the averages have been in terms of both those categories? Have they tended to be at this level, or have we had some other level? What has the average penalty been where a monetary penalty has been imposed?

[1150]

Hon. S. Anton: It's not really part of the changes to the act. I think if the member wanted that, perhaps we could get that information to him rather than going through it at length right now.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that. It is my sense that actually it is pretty important to the act to know what people actually pay, so it would be good to get that. I appreciate that the information isn't readily available to the minister and her staff. I'm happy to get it later, but I would appreciate the information.

Section (6) says that if a corporation is liable for a penalty under this section, "an officer, director or agent of the corporation who authorizes, permits or acquiesces in the contravention is also liable to the penalty." Does that mean there could be a penalty applied against the corporate entity and then another penalty applied against the officer or director? Or would it be an either-or situation?

Hon. S. Anton: It could be both. I would note that this section also was in the act before. There is one change, though, because it used to be that an employee could be liable to the penalty. That has been taken out.

S. Simpson: So with this, do the same maximums that are noted in section (5) apply? I presume they apply to the corporation. Those same maximums, those same levels of penalty would also apply to an officer, director or agent who was potentially liable for such a fine.

Hon. S. Anton: Section (6) is about who actually has to pay the penalty. If the corporation is assessed a penalty under the provisions of the act, the officer, director or agent is also liable to pay that. In other words, it's how you collect it, not how it's imposed.

S. Simpson: Just a clarification. I thought a minute ago the minister said both could be liable, the corporation and the director. Are we saying here there would be a single penalty — let's say it's $50,000, for lack of a better term — and the liability can rest with either the
[ Page 3087 ]
individuals or with the corporation, but somebody is liable for that?

Does the general manager direct that it shall be the director who's liable or it shall be the corporation? Or does it just say: "Corporation X and all your directors owe us $50,000. You pay it. We're not particularly concerned about whose pocket it comes out of, but you're all liable for it until we get a cheque"?

Hon. S. Anton: The member summed it up very well.

[1155]

S. Simpson: I'll do one more question, and then I think we'll be breaking for lunch.

Section (7) lays out that if the general manager is proposing to hold a hearing and is providing written notice to the licensee, they will put specifics in. Under (7)(b) it says, "specifying the actions the general manager proposes to take," notifying the licensee that they "may waive the opportunity" under section (8). Then section (8) says that they can do all of those things.

The question I have is: do we have circumstances…? If the penalty is X, whatever the penalty is that's proposed by the general manager and laid out in the notice to the licensee, are there instances where the general manager will say, "The penalty is X, but if you waive, the penalty is Y" — i.e., a plea bargain of sorts? Does that occur?

Hon. S. Anton: I would note as well that sections (7) and (8), as I mentioned earlier, are both existing. They were in the regulations before. They've now been moved into the legislation, so they are not new.

The answer to the direct question is no. There is not that form of bargaining that takes place.

Noting the time, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:56 a.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. T. Stone moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); M. Dalton in the chair.

The committee met at 11:04 a.m.

On Vote 14: ministry operations, $64,217,000.

Hon. S. Thomson: I look forward to the estimates process here for the Ministry of Agriculture. As everybody knows, I'm filling in, in this process for Minister Pat Pimm.

[1105]

I know that on both sides of the House our thoughts and prayers are with Pat for his recovery in the current challenges he's facing. I know he would like to be here, but as I said, our thoughts and prayers really are with him.

I'd like to introduce a few Ministry of Agriculture employees who are here today with me — Derek Sturko, deputy minister; Grant Parnell, who is our assistant deputy minister, business development division; James Mack, the assistant deputy minister, agriculture science and policy; and Shauna Brouwer, who is the assistant deputy minister, corporate services.

We'll probably have additional staff join as we go through the process, and I'll try to introduce them as they arrive. I remember in my previous estimates that sometimes I wasn't the best at making all those introductions as we slogged through the process, but I'll try to do it.

The staff, along with their teams of employees here in Victoria, in Abbotsford, in Kelowna and other locations around the province work very, very hard every day to make sure that the agriculture sector is a success.

As you know and as I know, the agriculture industry in British Columbia is a vital one, one that we're proud of and one that we want to continue to see succeed. My background, both growing up and work before politics, was in the agriculture industry, working on behalf of farmers and ranchers in British Columbia. I have a deep passion for ensuring that we do continue to meet that success for the industry.

We've made a number of very significant investments on behalf of the industry. We've seen the implementation of the carbon tax rebate for coloured fuels.

We've recently opened up applications again for commercial greenhouse growers to apply for the ongoing carbon tax rebate program.

We just recently cut the ribbon on a new centre of excellence for agriculture at the University of the Fraser
[ Page 3088 ]
Valley, giving students the education and training they need to meet the workforce demands in the growing agricultural economy.

We are continuing to support increased competitiveness through the development of the annual tree fruit replant program.

We've continued investments in projects under the federal-provincial Growing Forward 2 program, which will drive development in creating new products, new processes, new markets and new jobs in the sector.

We've made important announcements through the Buy Local program, giving the agrifood sector the flexibility they've asked for so that they can market their products and grow British Columbia awareness of local food products. That includes things like an awareness campaign for the B.C. Association of Farmers Markets, a smartphone app that connects British Columbians with local food options right to their doorsteps, and a We Heart Local campaign that the B.C. Agriculture Council is leading to get the word out about the good food British Columbians can access in their communities.

We've brought together a new minister's agriculture advisory committee, with membership from across the sector, to find new ways to work collectively to grow the industry.

In 2013, B.C. exported $2.7 billion worth of agrifood products to more than 140 countries, an increase of about $200 million from the year before. Exports to China continue to set records with $234 million in 2013, up $64 million from $170 million in 2012. The recently signed trade deals like CETA and the Canada-Korea free trade agreement also offer huge opportunities for the B.C. seafood and agriculture business.

We are committed to continuing to work collectively with the industry to ensure farmers, ranchers, those in the seafood-processing business and the food-processing business can succeed, focusing on developing a business environment that supports innovation and competitiveness.

As I said, it's an industry that we're proud of. We're committed to working closely to take advantage of the opportunities for the industry. We look forward to that continuing relationship with farmers, ranchers, agricultural associations and food processors — the whole value chain across the industry.

With those brief opening remarks, I look forward to comments and questions as we move through the estimates process. This is a very, very important sector and industry for British Columbia. I look forward to the discussion.

N. Simons: Thank you to the minister and to the staff who are here. I look forward to this process as well.

I can't help but echo my colleague's comments about wishing the Agriculture Minister all the best, and our thoughts and prayers are with him as well. No disrespect to the minister taking his place, but I would have preferred the Agriculture Minister to be here. Just to say that we're thinking about him as well.

[1110]

Thank you for being here in his stead. I'm sure that your experience and your knowledge of the sector will help you make up the answers — or find the answers, I should say. [Laughter.]

Let me start, if we could, with issues around the Agricultural Land Commission. I have a number of questions around that commission.

The question I have is: has the Agricultural Land Commission been consulted on proposed changes to their role?

Hon. S. Thomson: As we start on the process, I'm going to make a comment to start. Recognizing that this process is about the budget and the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture, we'll seek the Chair's guidance about discussion around legislation that is before the House.

My understanding is that legislation that is before the House is not the purview of the estimates process. I'll await that guidance as we go into the process.

In specific response to the question, yes, staff met with the commission during the core review process on occasion to review information and have had a number of follow-up discussions, as well, in terms of reviewing the information. So the process did include engagement with the commission.

N. Simons: My questions are about the core review process. I don't think the core review process has anything to do with the legislation before the House. If the minister wants to draw the tie between what's happened by the Minister Responsible for Core Review, then that's his prerogative, but my questions are about the ongoing operations of the Agricultural Land Commission.

As we move into this fiscal year and next fiscal year, I think it's important for us to know what communication exists between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Agricultural Land Commission. That's the basis of my questions with respect to the ALC.

When was the last time the Minister of Agriculture met with the commissioner?

[1115]

Hon. S. Thomson: As the member opposite knows — and we've talked already about the minister's health challenges — the minister did meet with the commission late last year, before the challenges. Subsequent to him learning about those challenges, subsequent meetings were carried out on behalf of the minister by the deputy and senior staff of the ministry.

The Chair: Before the member continues…. I will permit questions related to ministry operations and general questions regarding the Agricultural Land Commission.
[ Page 3089 ]
However, I feel that if the questions move to details of the Legislature, then I'll have to intervene.

N. Simons: I don't think any indication so far has given any suggestion that I will tread…. But I guess you know my reputation. Thank you, hon. Chair, for the pre-emption.

My question, to be more specific: did the minister meet with the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission?

Hon. S. Thomson: As I indicated, yes, he did.

N. Simons: My question is: how does the minister feel that the Agricultural Land Commission has been meeting its mandate?

[The bells were rung.]

The Chair: Division has been called. I declare a recess.

The committee recessed from 11:17 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.

[M. Dalton in the chair.]

Hon. S. Thomson: The question was: how does the minister think that the land commission is meeting its mandate? I think it's important to look back a little bit over the last couple of years. In 2010 the chair of the commission and the Auditor General published separate reports making a number of recommendations to strengthen the agricultural land reserve, enhance its ability to encourage agriculture. Based on that and the chair's report, legislative amendments were made that came into effect in November.

In November 2011 we also announced approval of additional funding for the commission. In 2014-15 that amounts to a total of $1.5 million, and $1.417 million for 2015-16 to support the ALC to improve its administration, proactively deal with emerging issues. It continues to work on implementing those improvements.

In 2010 the Premier wrote to the minister outlining the expectations "to ensure that the ALC is delivering on its improvements arising from the budget increase" that it received and "to ensure that the ALR is working for B.C. and to propose any changes necessary." The expected outcomes are to ensure that the boundaries are accurate, include land as capable, engage in long-term planning and to move away from being reactive and focussed on applications towards becoming a proactive planning organization.

The land commission is working with these additional resources to meet those mandates, and in my view, the commission is doing well in meeting its mandate.

N. Simons: Was the Ministry of Agriculture involved in the core review that made recommendations? Was the ministry involved in that process?

Hon. S. Thomson: Yes, the ministry was, just as all ministries are, in the core review process for their respective ministries, for issues and initiatives that are developed through that process.

N. Simons: Did the minister recommend that the Agricultural Land Commission be a part of the core review?

Hon. S. Thomson: It's important to understand that the core review committee is a cabinet committee process, so to answer specific information about how decisions come through that process would be breaking that cabinet confidentiality process. All ministers take their ministries to…. Core review decisions are made by the committee. But in terms of the process, that would be part of the cabinet confidentiality process, and that question would be more appropriately addressed to the Minister Responsible for Core Review.

[1135]

N. Simons: My specific question is whether the Minister of Agriculture recommended or approved of the decision that the Agricultural Land Commission be a part of the core review?

Hon. S. Thomson: As indicated, the decision processes of how decisions are achieved and in what manner through the core review committee is part of the confidentiality process of cabinet committees.

That question would be more appropriately addressed to the Minister Responsible for Core Review. The outcome of that process was that the commission was part of…. A review and process was initiated as part of core review, but the process around how those decisions are made is part of the cabinet confidentiality and more appropriately addressed to the Minister Responsible for Core Review.

N. Simons: Does the minister believe that the Agricultural Land Commission should have been part of the core review?

Hon. S. Thomson: The core review process — I think it's important to point out — is about confirming the structure, role of government; ensuring government is structured for success by looking at its delivery models; looking at governance; looking at overlap and duplication; answering the fundamental question of who's in the best position to deliver which programs and services and how.

I think it is an appropriate process. It's one that…. As I said, all ministers with their ministries — and agencies, boards, commissions, programs and services within their ministries — are subject to that process. Decisions of the cabinet committee in which parts of ministries and government continue on through a core review process are
[ Page 3090 ]
the decisions of the committee.

In this case, the core review is looking at how we can assure that the Agricultural Land Commission continues to meet its mandate going forward and to look at how we continue to improve and modernize its operations.

N. Simons: What the minister just said was essentially what the mandate letter requested of the Minister of Agriculture. I'm just wondering: how do the two contradict each other? Or are they exactly the same thing? If so, why did the core review do what the mandate letter asked the Minister of Agriculture to do?

[1140]

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, the member opposite is correct in terms of the mandate that was provided to the minister for review. The core review process is one of the processes to look at that. As ministers go forward with their mandate letters, all aspects of operations in their ministries are taken through that process to determine whether that is the process that will help work through to meet the mandate.

It is very similar to, if we want to use another example…. If you look at a mandate letter, for example, in the Ministry of Environment around Pacific Carbon Trust, which was in the mandate letter. That was also taken through the core review process. So it's one of the processes that helps assist in meeting the mandates provided and ensures that the broader process of government provides input into assisting ministers in meeting the mandate.

N. Simons: Essentially, what we have is a report from the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission. We have an Auditor General's report. What was it that the Minister for Core Review didn't trust about those reports that required this process to come back to be a part of the core review? What were the things in their reports that the ministry didn't agree with and that required further re-examination under core review?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, it's important to recognize this process is one of the processes in terms of having the services and programs of ministries reviewed. There is nothing in the other reports that weren't trusted. In fact, those other reports helped focus decisions that had been made previously in terms of legislation and additional funding support.

In terms of moving forward with the mandate that was provided, it was one of the processes. In terms of assisting the process, how those decisions are made, as I said, is a cabinet committee process and confidential in terms of how those decisions were made within the core review committee. That would be more appropriately addressed to the Minister Responsible for Core Review.

[1145]

But to say that was the decision, that it would be managed through that process…. Once that direction or decision was made, then the review and the development of options in order to meet that mandate were part of that process, which led to the outcomes of the review process and legislation that's currently before the House.

N. Simons: What I think is at issue here is that the Ministry of Agriculture was supportive of the changes recommended by the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission, implementing changes that were recommended by the Auditor General, and then out of left field the Minister Responsible for Core Review comes barging into the picture and changes everything.

What exactly did the Ministry of Agriculture ask to be changed with respect to the core review?

Hon. S. Thomson: I'll take you back to the mandate letter. The mandate letter provided to the minister was:

"Ensure the Agricultural Land Commission is delivering on the improvements promised arising from the budget increase it received in balanced budget 2013.

"Ensure the…land reserve is working for British Columbia and propose any changes necessary. These changes must successfully balance our desire to protect valuable farmland while allowing for responsible economic development opportunities.

"Bring forward ALR changes that will further encourage the stability of farm families and the farming industry in British Columbia."

The process in carrying out that mandate, as I said earlier, was that all ministries' operations and programs are reviewed through the core review process, and decisions are made as to whether the process, in working with ministers to meet their mandates, works through core review or in other ways. The process of working to address the mandate was through that core review process.

How the decisions within the committee were made, as I said, is part of cabinet confidentiality more appropriately directed to the Minister Responsible for Core Review. But again, the core review is looking at how — and the mandate was looking at how — the ALC, ALR can help continue to grow the diverse agriculture sector, continue to protect farmland and at the same time better support farm families and the growth of the agriculture sector.

N. Simons: I've heard those lines before, and that's fine. I understand where the minister is coming from on that.

Does the minister fundamentally believe in the independence of the Agricultural Land Commission?

Hon. S. Thomson: Fundamentally, yes, I do. The process as before — it has not changed that.

With that, noting the hour, hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:50 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2014: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada